UK Offence Report

Offences in connection with applications for licences, conditions attaching to licences, etc.

article 13(1) of The Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1994

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

1 If for the purposes of obtaining any licence or permission under this Order any person makes any statement or furnishes any document or information which to his knowledge is false in

a material particular or recklessly makes any statement or furnishes any document or information which is false in

a material particular he shall be guilty of an offence under this Order.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
making a false or misleading statement
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly).

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: recklessly.

The defence, as drafted

for an offence in contravention of article 6 of this Order it shall be a defence for the accused person to prove that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the goods in question were to be supplied or delivered to or to the order of a person connected with Haiti. 4 In the case of proceedings for an offence in contravention of article 7(3) or (4) of this Orde

What would breach article 13(1)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1994.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
18 May 1994
In force from
23 May 1994
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 2. It re-enacts, with certain modifications, the provisions of the Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1785) and imposes further restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 917 of 6th May 1994 on the export of goods to Haiti and the supply of goods to persons connected with Haiti and on the importation of goods therefrom. It restricts certain related activities including the carriage of prohibited goods in ships, aircraft and vehicles. The Order also prohibits aircraft, except for scheduled passenger aircraft, from taking off from, landing in or overflying the United Kingdom if they are destined for, or have taken off from, Haiti. It also restricts the making of payments under any bond in respect of a contract the performance of which is unlawful by virtue of the Order, and prohibits the making of or obtaining payments under certain indemnities in respect of such bonds.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source